ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Development and standardisation of the sentence identification test in the Kannada language
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, India
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Chinnaraj Geetha   

Chinnaraj Geetha, Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, India, e-mail: geethamysore.cs@gmail.com
Publication date: 2020-04-16
 
J Hear Sci 2014;4(1):18–26
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
The present study aimed to develop and standardise the sentence identification test in the Kannada language. This study used a normative research design that included development and standardisation of sentence tests.

Material and Methods:
A total of 700 sentences in the Kannada language, selected from various sources, were evaluated for naturalness, predictability, and equivalency by 33 participants. Sentences considered to be natural, low in predictability, and equivalent were used to construct 30 lists of 10 sentences each. Standardisation of the material and list equivalency were assessed on 100 listeners with normal hearing ability.

Results:
Based on ratings of naturalness and predictability, 564 sentences were considered as highly natural and of low predictability. Of these, 316 were found to have equal difficulty based on a performance-SNR function and were used to construct 30 lists. Repeated measures ANOVA and Bonferroni post hoc tests revealed Lists 1, 3, 15, 16, and 30 to be significantly different from at least one of the other lists. After removing these lists, the mean identification score for the final 25 lists at –5 dB SNR was 54%.

Conclusions:
The sentence identification test in Kannada for adults consists of 25 homogenous lists. The normative for the same is also given in the study. Its application is being assessed for hearing evaluation in the clinical population.

 
REFERENCES (26)
1.
Mueller GH. Speech audiometry and hearing aid fittings: Going steady or casual acquaintances? Hear J, 2001: 54(10): 19–29.
 
2.
Wilson RH, McArdle RA. Speech signals used to evaluate the functional status of the auditory system. J Rehab Res Dev 2005; 42(Suppl. 2): 79–94.
 
3.
Taylor B. Speech-in-noise tests: How and why to include them in your basic test battery. Hear J, 2003; 56: 40–46.
 
4.
Tyler R. The use of speech-perception tests in audiological rehabilitation: Current and future research needs. J Acad Rehab Audiol, 1994; 27: 47–56.
 
5.
Hirsh IJ. The measurement of hearing. McGraw-Hill: New York; 1952.
 
6.
Carhart R. Problems in the measurement of speech discrimination. Arch Otolaryngol, 1965; 82 (9): 253–60.
 
7.
Kollmeier B, Wesselkamp M. Development and evaluation of a German sentence test for objective and subjective speech intelligibility assessment. J Acoust Soc Am, 1997; 102(4): 2412–21.
 
8.
Miller GA, Heise GA, Lichten W. The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. J Experimental Psychol, 1951; 41(5): 329–35.
 
9.
Mendel LL, Danhauer JL. Audiologic evaluation and management and speech perception assessment. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group; 1997.
 
10.
Delattre P. Comparing the vocalic features of English, German, Spanish and French. Int Rev Appl Linguist, 1964; 2: 71–98.
 
11.
Silverman SF, Hirsh IJ. Problems related to the use of speech in clinical audiometry. Ann Oto Rhinol Laryngol, 1955; 64: 1234.
 
12.
Peissig J, Kollmeier B. Directivity of binaural noise reduction in spatial multiple-noise-source arrangements for normal and impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 1997; 101: 1660–70.
 
13.
Gatehouse S. The time course and magnitude of perceptual acclimatization to frequency responses: Evidence from monaural fitting of hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am, 1992; 92: 1258–68.
 
14.
Avinash MC, Meti RR, Kumar AU. Development of sentences for quick speech-in-noise (QuickSin) test in Kannada. J In Sp Hear Assoc, 2010; 24(1): 59–65.
 
15.
Dubno JR, Dirks DD, Morgan DE. Effect of mild hearing loss on speech recognition in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 1984; 76: 87–96.
 
16.
Clark JG. Uses and abuses of hearing loss classification. ASHA, 1981; 23: 493–500.
 
17.
Gelfand SA. Hearing: An introduction to psychological and physiological acoustics. 3rd ed. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1998.
 
18.
Rahana NVV, Yathiraj A. Development of high and low predictable English sentence test. Unpublished Master’s Dissertation. Mysore: University of Mysore; 2007.
 
19.
McGarr NS. The effect of context on the intelligibility of hearing and deaf children’s speech. Lang Speech, 1981; 24: 255–64.
 
20.
Garcia J, Cannito M. Influence of verbal and nonverbal contexts on the sentence intelligibility of a speaker with dysarthria. J Speech Hear Res, 1996; 39: 750–60.
 
21.
Garcia J, Dagenais P. Dysarthric sentence intelligibility: Contribution of iconic gestures and message predictiveness J Speech Hear Res, 1998; 41(6): 1282–93.
 
22.
Barreto S, Ortiz KZ. Intelligibility: effects of transcription analysis and speech stimulus. Pro Fono, 2010; 22(2): 125–32.
 
23.
Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 1994; 95(2): 1085–99.
 
24.
Ramakrishna BS, Nair KK, Chiplunkar VN, Atal BS, Ramachandran V, Subramanian R. Some aspects of the relative efficiencies of Indian languages. Ranchi, India: Catholic Press; 1962.
 
25.
Nisha KV, Manjula P. Are different hearing settings required for different languages? Unpublished Master’s Dissertation. Mysore: University of Mysore; 2013.
 
26.
Martin FN, Champlin CA, Perez DD. The question of phonetic balance in word recognition testing. J Am Acad Audiol, 2000; 9: 95–104.
 
eISSN:2084-3127
ISSN:2083-389X